Which statistic is correct?

[Luisa]

This study may shine a bit more light-

Nicotine Replacement Therapy Modestly Boosts Long-term Success Rates for Smokers

"Researchers from the Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine in Switzerland identified all randomized placebo-controlled trials of NRT that lasted longer than 12 months. Twelve studies with an average follow-up of 4.3 years and a total of 4,792 participants (NRT: 2,408; placebo: 2,384) met the criteria for this meta-analysis. Three types of NRT were studied: patch (5 trials), gum (4), and nasal spray (3); each delivered about 1 mg of nicotine per hour. Participants used NRT for about three months and received counseling; the control groups only received counseling. The researchers, therefore, were able estimate the long-term effectiveness of NRT beyond the effect of counseling."

"In both the treatment and placebo groups, 30% of volunteers relapsed after the 12-month point. NRT showed significant benefits in six of the 12 trials, and no benefit in the other six. But when all the data were combined and analyzed, NRT almost doubled the rate of successfully quitting beyond 12 months. However, since the rate of success was quite low, even a doubling of this rate meant success for only about 7% of the 2,408 participants receiving NRT in this meta-analysis."

Basically, I read that to mean that the long term effectiveness of cold turkey is around 3.5% with traditional NRT long term success at 3.5% better success, still pretty ineffective. I'm sure Chantix has a better quit rate, but as posted, there are some serious consequences in using the drug. Also working backwards, based on the 30% relapse after one year, the average quit rate at one year would be around 10% for the NRT studied. So if the average of the Spray, Patch and Gum were 26.4% at six months, another 62% were lost between month 6 and one year.

Thanks for everyones" help! I think I will follow Rolys" suggestion and us the 20 month success rate of 7%. BUT--where did the CDC get their 6 month success rate? That just does not compute with all the other studies.

 

[rothenbj]

Elaine, I've talked to people that have been using the gum for years. I recall one lady that told me she's used the gum for 12 years and chews a dozen pieces a day. All I thought was the Pharma companies love her.

 

[Vocalek]

A dozen pieces a day? Wow, she must have a cast iron stomach. Yes, I know folks that have used the gum for decades, too. It has only been about 3 or 4 years for me. Max I can handle is maybe 5 pieces a day.

 

[rothenbj]

She has iron something. I just found out yesterday that she "borrowed" a friends credit card and went on a spending spree to the tune of $9k. I don't expect I'll be seeing her again any time soon, but I did forget to mention she was using the gum to keep the number of cigarettes she smoked down. Talk about dual use.

 

[Demarko]

80% of all statistics are made up on the spot anyway.

 

[Jennie O]

Chantix scared me into not trying that. No desire to try anything til I found the ecig.

 

[Turnkeys]

80% of all statistics are made up on the spot anyway.

This is true no matter what the experts tell you.

Chantix scared me into not trying that. No desire to try anything til I found the eCig.

It did me as well. Gum, patches & Chantix... still hammered daily on multiple TV ads. Ever see any side-effects listed in those ads?

 

[LeAnn]

Well I tried the patch for 3 months till I wouldn't stand the itching and burning on my skin and as soon as I stopped wearing it I started craving the cigs again. This was the 2nd time I tried the patch. Now I have been cigarette free since July 15th 2010 and haven't even wanted a cigarette! I am a HappyVapor!

 

[Thulium]

Lies, damned lies, and statistics. (Listed in order of credibility)

Here's the statistic that you can't find: What percentage of recreational nicotine users will be able to completely stop using all recreational forms of nicotine (called "tobacco products" in the US) if they are successfully convinced that they must quit or be socially outcast?

If the answer is anything less than 100%, it is in the interest of Public Health to ensure that safer alternatives to the most dangerous products are at least as readily available. Substituting with safer products can and should be encouraged (rather than denied as the FDA is attempting) by promoting the safety advantages of smoke-free alternatives to smoking, including the ability to use them in places where it may not be safe to smoke.

FACT: Without a 100% effective "cure", any abolitionist agenda is fundamentally flawed anathema. Even if smoke-free alternatives are proven to be 100% safe and effective and it was actually possible to eradicate smoking completely, do we really want or need a Totalitarian Healthist State?? Even if we did, can we really trust the FDA's track record to get us there???

 

[Vocalek]

Thad:

You are famous now on Twitter:

TobHrmReduct THRorg team
Good letter on smokers financing their own oppression; http://......./dMXI3n
2 hours ago Favorite Retweet Reply

If you fill in the "......" with "bit" dot "ly", you will be taken to response #54 in this thread.

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...ation-bans-e-cigs-airlines-6.html#post2716171

You can also see the Tweet here: http://tobaccoharmreduction.org/

Look in the scrolling black box under
Like our Twittering? Keep it going by signing up. We could use the feedback!

 

[Bill Godshall]

Something that drug companies and academic researchers don't reveal in their clinical trials for various smoking cessation products include:
- participants are often solicited via newspaper ads stating "Smokers: earn $500 for participating in study",
- studies are typically conducted in academic medical centers where participants play the role of a submissive patient, and
- most participants already believe that the product being tested has already been proven effective for smoking cessation.

So these clinical trials don't even closely resemble real world situations faced by smokers when trying to quit.